As odd as it might seem,
this was pretty easy to call. The Ranger is a clear winner when it comes to
on-road driving.

It was especially happy on
our drive loop, wich took in several rolling roads with off-camber crests and
some less-than-perfect surfaces. Ford engineers have built a workhorse ute that
gets as close to a car in terms of ride and handling. The steering is precise,
it turns in with little fuss, and it sits relatively flat through the corners.

If the frame is flexing or
vibrating, the fluid-filled chassis mounts do a good job of hiding it all from
the occupants.

The Ranger is remarkably
quiet, too, so you can easily have a conversation with someone in back without
raising your voice. The ride is a little on the firm side, and it can get a bit
fidgety at lower speeds.

Holden’s Colorado is a
different beast. It’s a lot softer, and the body roll is far more pronounced.
Occupants feel more movement through the frame, and you can actually see the
cargo bed move in the rearview mirror. The steering adds to the cumbersome feel;
you have turn it a lot to move around tighter bends. The power assistance
groans slightly on full tilt.

Even so, the Colorado is
still endearing as it is more comfortable at lower speeds with its plush
suspension. Its engine is one of the noisier units at idle and low speeds, but
its deep note is not annoying.

This is a strong engine,
and even though it’s almost 25 cubic inches smaller than the Ranger unit, it
appears to be just as capable. Both have lots of pulling power and don’t need
to be worked hard. The Ranger engine is generally far quieter, but it has an
annoying injector-related noise that is not linear. I checked with Ford NVH
guys to work out what I was hearing, and I was told some people, especially
older people, can’t hear it, so it might not be an issue for everyone.

The automatic
transmissions in the Ranger and Colorado tended to hunt for gears more than
they needed to.

The Volkswagen Amarok is
not as sharp as the Ranger when it comes to on-road driving, but it’s not as
blunt as the Colorado, either. The VW does have a fair amount of body roll, and
the suspension is softer than the Ford’s suspension, which might be fine on the
off-road section, but here it was a little unnerving. The steering is closer to
the Ranger than the Colorado, but it can’t match the quick and agile feel of
the Ranger.

VW says the Amarok’s small
engine is not an issue, but driving it back to back with utes fitted with larger
engines, we disagree. Giving away 50-some pounds-feet of torque is always going
to be an issue, and you notice the difference even without any loads in the
cargo bed.

We found ourselves pushing
the VW into higher rpm ranges, and it can get loud when you do so. The manual
gearbox does the job, but it is a shame the automatic is available only with
the permanent all-wheel-drive model that misses out on low range.

The Hilux is the last to
be mentioned, and it is appropriate because it finishes well behind the others
when it comes to on-road manners. It is the least composed, bumping and
jostling around over relatively small imperfections. The chassis appears to
pass on many of the jolts into the cab from the suspension, which doesn’t seem
to be dampening the bumps well enough.

Steering feel in the Hilux
is too light, and it feels vague as a result. Toyota was unable to give us a
diesel for our test, so we made due with the 3.0-liter gas option. We had
driven with the same engine a few years ago, and it seemed fine then, too, but with
just 254 pounds-feet of torque, this motor is off the pace these days.

Our gas engine revved out
nicely, but the fuel consumption (which we’ll cover in our Overall Value
section) would be an issue. Still, at least Toyota offers a large-capacity gas
engine as an option. As for the transmission, it might have only four gears,
but works well enough as it is.